Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id WAA09723 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:36:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA018899236; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:33:56 -0700
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 19:33:56 -0700
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <13199648.Amiga@kitsune.swcp.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: larrys@swcp.com (Larry Shultz)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: DV format cameras
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>You wrote:
>>
>>> Don't hold your breath while waiting for 'straight-to-harddisk'
>>> capture. There aren't any cards yet that take the digital signal
>into
>>> the computer, and there may not be any yet this year.
>>
>>How would these new DV cameras differ from shooting with Betacam
>directly
>>to hard drive with the PVR?
>
>Well, for one, you won't have to lug a PC with a PVR around. This can
>get kinda old as those of you who remember the good old days of lugging
>3/4" portapaks around can attest to.. :)
I was curious; a friend of mine has a flyer/betacam setup. He is VERY picky and meticulous
when it comes to video quality (some might even say "anal"). He told me that a friend of his
brought over his new DV camera and they went out and shot some footage in the same areas with
both the DV camera and a Betacam camera. He told me that he felt that the DV camera was an
excellent bargain but when comparing the two he still felt he could tell the difference between
the Betacam footage and the DV footage (the betacam being the better). He still felt that the DV
camera had advantages based on size, cost and quality but still had inferior quality compared to
Betacam. Anybody else had any experience with this?